[barend]

i'm relly inbetween the two groups when it comes to the films.

i treat them as seperate entities in many ways. you just have to.

characters and events were missing, but they were things that don't translate well to film. as i've said before, probably on this very thread.

my biggest beef, retrospectivley, is the elves showing up at helmsdeep, the re-ordering of events surrounding eomer and eowyn on pelenor, the shortening of the houses of the healing, and aragorn saying he refused to believe that frodo was dead.


outside of those, no one has come close to making films this awsome.


i have to say though, that PJ (pedro) has an amazing way of justifying many descisions in his comontary...

[Lord Aquaman]

I just don't like the way they portray the dwarf in the 2nd film.

[civilian_number_two]

I don't like Gimlis' portrayal either, in pretty much all three films.

I've said this before, but here it is again. The stuff in the Lord of the Rings books REALLY HAPPENED. That's the true history of the world. So when we read the book we're getting one author's interpretati8on of it, and when we watch the movie, we're seeing another. The truth is either somewhere in between, or in another telling altogether.

At least that's hw I like to think Tolkien would have felt. He never wanted his books to be made into films, but I like to think that my simple and silly analogy to historical folk tale would have pleased him, since he was after all trying to produce a new mythology.

[Despondent]

Convincingly.

[barend]

my review for LOTR trillogy would be: close enough
10/10 (or 9.99999999999999999999999999999999999 out of 10)

(just make sure to watch the EEs only)

[Lord Aquaman]

I don't like Gimlis' portrayal either, in pretty much all three films.

Gimli bugged me most in the 2nd film where he fumbled, bumbled, fell down and tripped over himself the most. I just felt that it threw off the tone of the film, which was mostly serious, and then you have the dwarf doing these Jar Jar Binks/Homer Simpson style pratfalls. Like I said, this threw off the more serious feeling of the film. He didn't annoy me quite as much in FOTR and ROTK, it was mostly in "Towers".

[J m HofMarN]

A few comments, since I'm watching it right now:

The ups:

Saruman's death, naturally. The fact that he was at the top of the tower was silly. They could have done the same from the balcony and had it be more physically possible. However, I have to point out that when Saruman points out the festering in the heart of Middle Earth he's refering to Denethor's mind being poisoned through the Palantir.

Arwen seeing her son was not just silly as the creator of this thread pointed out, but the child is representative of the renewing of the line of kings, since they developed their royalty through mingling with elven blood.

"It's better if you don't say anything at all, Peregrin Took." - That line is just great. It's humorous, but it's not slapstick or forced.

"Your kinsman may have no need to ride to war, I fear war is already on their own lands" - I love this reference to the books, and it ties up a loose end of why we dont see more dwarves.

Downs:

Denethor's need of a bib. Yeah no one likes that.

Gimli's extended scenes. I didnt think it was possible for him to be less funny than in the second movie. And might I point out that a thin slender elf would get drunk far faster than a stocky dwarf who was used to drinking constantly. In D&D terms, elves have low constitution and dwarves have high. Constitution is a stat that determines, among other things, ability to stand alcohol.

The return of the counting game.

That's about it for me so far.

This is a nitpiick, but in the scene where the orcs raid Osgilliath, they shoot the first Gondor soldier in his full plate armor and the arrow just pops right through. The armor must be made by the same chaps that make storm trooper armor.

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 06 August 2006 - 03:18 AM

[Madam Corvax]

I've said this before, but here it is again. The stuff in the Lord of the Rings books REALLY HAPPENED. That's the true history of the world. So when we read the book we're getting one author's interpretati8on of it, and when we watch the movie, we're seeing another. The truth is either somewhere in between, or in another telling altogether.

Ha, that's funny. I think you would have enjoyed one book called "The Last Ringbearer", then. There you go:
http://en.wikipedia....i/Kirill_Yeskov

Another funny thing - I also attempted to translate some bits of it, but I also translated from a translation from Russian into Polish (a very brilliant translation, BTW). I can send you my work if you are interested. I would have posted a sample here, only I have no idea how it stands with the copyright and such...

And I am amazed that someone actually bumped this thread

[J m HofMarN]

Well watching the extended ed will do that. That line also struck me because, I think it might even be on one of the accompanying disks on the 4 disk set for ROTK, Peter Jackson is saying that he gave his site crew orders that they were supposed to be acting like they were making a historical reproduction and not a fantasy film, and that they should act as though all this actually happened. Some of the stuff on the making of disks is pretty neat though they could have done with a bit more tolkien and less movie stuff.

[StarWarsIsUs]

Saruman's death, naturally. The fact that he was at the top of the tower was silly. They could have done the same from the balcony and had it be more physically possible. However, I have to point out that when Saruman points out the festering in the heart of Middle Earth he's refering to Denethor's mind being poisoned through the Palantir.

Wow, this thread goes back a while.

But I was dissapointed that PJ didn't do Saruman's deconstruction of The Shire. He did state that it would subtract from the climax of destroying the Ring... but as far as I can see, there is no deleted scene of it. This was one of my favorite parts of the Book. And being shot with an arrow by an elf was an ironic way for the wizard to die. I thought that would have looked great in the movie... might have even got some claps from the audience.

This post has been edited by StarWarsIsUs: 07 August 2006 - 05:21 PM

[Jordan]

It annoyed me that he wasn't played by a short guy. WTF, they couldn't find a 5'1 body builder?

The guy who played the character of gimili made him out to be some stupid mick rather than a stalwart dwarven warrior.

[StarWarsIsUs]

I thought Gimli was fine.

[barend]

they did make gimli a tad comical... but he also kicked major ass without getting a scratch.

[Casual Fan]

I would like to write an extended review of the trilogy as a whole, but at the moment I just don't have the time.

One problem with reactions to the movies is that fans of the books naturally first point out the deviations from the books. People who have been exposed to the movies first then think that their objections is only that they deviated from the books. I'm more interested in how the movies work as movies. However, most of the deviations made the movies worse as movies. This is particularly true of all the added stuff made up by the writers; they just couldn't develop a story as well as Tolkein, and it shows.

There were some occassions where the movies were too faithful to the books, and that might be a more interesting topic of discussion. For example, in the theatrical edition of FOTR, the Caradhas scenes should not have been there, and the time should have been used for the Lorien gift giving scenes. Showing the failed attempt to go over the mountains doesn't really do much to advance the story.

Also, there is the difference between the theatrical and the extended editions. Quite frankly, the editing of the movies was terrible (and I liked the movies). There are so many scenes in the extended editions that should have been in the theatrical editions, and so much fluff in the theatrical editions that could have been cut, that the extended editions are almost different, and much better movies. I think the difference is probably greatest for ROTK, though some may argue that its greater for TTT since the theatrical edition of that one is a particular mess.

[Just your average movie goer]

Wow. I just saw that my favourite thread on this forum has been bounced back from the depths. How could I resist logging on to add my five cents worth?

Some great points there - especially your points about the editing decisions, Casual Fan. I felt the same way. Some really good material got cut from the theatrical cuts while a lot of mediocre things that could have been left out were kept in.

Take the history of Smeagol shown at the start of 'Return of the King'. It's interesting, sure - but truth be told, it wasn't that great and it didn't do anything to advance the story. Considering how much stuff had to be crammed into the film, it is surprising that this was left in.

Then on the other hand, really good scenes that seemed made for the cinema were cut. The death of Saruman is the most obvious example but there were others. There was a really nice scene between Merry and Eowyn for instance that not only helped to establish the bond between the two characters but was also one of Merry's most poignant scenes in the whole trilogy. Why that was left out, I have no idea. Ditto for the houses of healing and that scene between Eowyn and Faramir. The other puzzling thing about the exclusion of these scenes is that none of them were particularly long.

Anyway, I am certain that the audiences in the cinemas would have enjoyed watching these scenes more than Smeagol fishing or the very tedious Dunharrow scenes (has anyone mentioned them before in this thread? They really killed the movie's momentum).

However, I have to disagree with you, Casual Fan, about the Caradhas scene in "The Fellowship of the Ring". While it didn't advance the story, it was only a couple of minutes long and it really contributed to the epic feel that that movie had.

I think the extended editions are better films though. But having said that, I think they could be improved even further by leaving some things on the cutting room floor.

Now onto some new observations after more viewings of "Return of the King". I've really come to appreciate this movie more and more. It is a magnificent feat and a splendid film in so many ways. The impression it leaves on you after the credits roll is very strong. Giant cinema screens weren't made for Adam Sandler movies that would be just as unwatchable on a normal TV; they were made for films like this and I think I speak for a lot of people when I say I wish they'd make movies like this more often.

Now, without trying to detract from that, I did notice something a little odd on my last viewing of this epic. Something bothered me before about the scene where Frodo is captured by the orcs and this time, I put my finger on it. You see, in the book, the orcs find Frodo because Sam left him behind. He had made a very difficult decision and had began to continue on without him. However, what we get here borders on silly. Sam, crouched over Frodo, hears some orcs coming and then hides behind a rock. In doing so, he leaves Frodo out in plain view for the orcs and then watches like a dope as the orcs look Frodo over and take him away. And I'm sure I know what he must have been thinking:

"My old gaffer would have a thing or two to say if he could see me now."


And indeed he would. It would probably be something along the lines of "Samwise, you dope!"

This post has been edited by Just your average movie goer: 15 August 2006 - 08:04 AM